The defending slam champ not being the favorite....
- Thread starter Jonesy
- Start date
socallefty
Hall of Fame
We can already conclude that he was very lucky as he did not have to face any of the Big 3 to win a Slam. Usually you have to beat one or two of them in the last two rounds which is very hard to do. Plus, his NextGen opponent got service yips and choked like crazy in the end after playing well enough to beat him for most of the match.
CYGS
Legend
Federer won many slams without beating one of the Big 3.
socallefty
Hall of Fame
That’s why most knowledgeable experts call him the third best player in tennis history
Very lucky to be in the right era from 2003-2009, but very unlucky in the last decade going up against #1 and #2 who are both younger than him.
Beckerserve
Legend
Too early to say. Every year way too much emphasis is put on the AO but it is at such a strange point in the calendar it is meaningless as a form guide for other 3 Majors.
We can judge after Canada and Cinci who favourites are.
BGod
Legend
It depends.
Wawrinka wasn't favoured to repeat any of his Slams although at close betting odds for 2016 French.
Andy Murray only 1 of 3 titles (2014 Wimbledon)
And I don't believe Nadal was for the 2010 Aussie Open.
That's just this era, I don't think anyone wants me to go back to the 90s but I can tell you at least Rafter in 98 wasn't favoured.
Wawrinka wasn't favoured to repeat any of his Slams although at close betting odds for 2016 French.
Andy Murray only 1 of 3 titles (2014 Wimbledon)
And I don't believe Nadal was for the 2010 Aussie Open.
That's just this era, I don't think anyone wants me to go back to the 90s but I can tell you at least Rafter in 98 wasn't favoured.
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
Yes, I'm sure Nadal "lucked out" at AO09 @MichaelNadal